My Photo

« Behold the ObWi Hive Mind Turn Against Itself | Main | 'We Were Stabbed In The Back' »

August 12, 2005

Comments

I couldn't agree more.

"I do know that I hate seeing people slimed."

I think she is sliming Bush and not taking into account that it is his job to protect the people of this country. She shouldn't be sliming him. Maybe we could spend some time acknowledging the background of the war in Iraq and shed some light on why Bush thinks it is important to wage that war. I think this would do alot to prevent people from sliming our President.

Good post, Hilzoy. To answer your question at the end, which isn't really meant for me, we're talking about the same set of folks who still believe there's a connection between Osama and Saddam because they were once at the same cocktail party.

It's all-too-obvious why they're going after Sheehan. They want to discourage other family members of the military victims to speak out.

eeeck. from speaking out.

Maybe we could spend some time acknowledging the background of the war in Iraq and shed some light on why Bush thinks it is important to wage that war.

go for it. tell us why our fellow Americans need to die for Iraqis ?

(i hope it's not an eye-for-an-eye thing, cause we'd be tens of thousands in the red on that one.)

"I think this would do alot to prevent people from sliming our President."

Too much self-accreted material already, of slime and other less savory varieties, for aything additional to stick.

An utterly admirable post, hilzoy, I am not sure it doesn't serve the enemy's purpose to indulge in these mudfights, if even in defending the unjustly attacked. They seem to enjoy them so much. They were not damaged by Swift Boat or Schiavo, and might know what they doing. We are certainly here not talking about what Ms Sheehan wants talked about.

And, unless you are willing to make the kind of general judgement that I am known for and may not be spoken on this blog, you are ( I presume) addressing a minority not readily susceptible to shame and reform. Or you are addressing a respectable majority (in your opinion) that (IMO) has not shown any previous enthusiasm for actually disciplining their fringe.

PS:Rather than Norquist, It might have had more bite and been more fun to use a chain of associations involving Lott, Barbour, and the Citizen's Council.

Bob M: true. I thought of that, but couldn't remember the Citizen's Council's name, and since there were so many possibilities to choose from, I just grabbed another off the pile. (Poor von: so many different dreadful people I might have tied him to in this post...)

Maybe we could spend some time acknowledging the background of the war in Iraq and shed some light on why Bush thinks it is important to wage that war.

Maybe he could just tell us himself. Preferably in the process of explaining why he's refusing to take an hour to talk to a woman bereaved by his quixotic war.

She shouldn't be sliming him.

And that's the best explanation you'll get, I suspect. That's Cindy Sheehan's real crime: lèse-majesté.

Council of Conservative Citizens, I believe it is called.

"Council of Conservative Citizens, I believe it is called"

I am proud to have forgotten.

A grieving mother who dares to think she can speak truth to power--now there's a serious threat to national security. And so what if others of the same opinion join her in her protest? The people camping out at Crawford look like Americans to me. Messy, chaotic groups of earnest people who are seriously upset by this fiasco in Iraq and not afraid to say so. Maybe we should take note of who is not at Crawford, namely representatives of the Democrat and Republican parties.

Please DNFTT.

Cleek,

"go for it. tell us why our fellow Americans need to die for Iraqis ?"

See 9/11.
See failed Arab states.
See Islamic extremists throughout the Middle East.
See a dictator who attacks his neighbors
See picture of Hussein smiling with a cigar in his hand in front of the WTC as planes fly into them.

Anarch,

"Preferably in the process of explaining why he's refusing to take an hour to talk to a woman bereaved by his quixotic war."

Been there and done that. Maybe you could give him some credit for it.

Laura,

"And so what if others of the same opinion join her in her protest?"

My mother always said, "You are your friends."

Oh, I'm sure someone else will slip in with something similar while I write this, but...

>See 9/11.

And that has what relevance to Iraq?

>See failed Arab states.
>See Islamic extremists throughout the Middle East.

Both of which problems have been demonstrably exacerbated by the war.

>See a dictator who attacks his neighbors

See a dictator whose neighbors in Iran represent a much more substantive threat to the U.S. and who are now unchecked by his presence.

>See picture of Hussein smiling with a cigar in his hand in front of the WTC as planes fly into them.

See *what*? What in God's name are you talking about? He was actually *there*?

Been there and done that. Maybe you could give him some credit for it.

Sure. You recall any details of that meeting?

"A grieving mother who dares to think she can speak truth to power--now there's a serious threat to national security."

She isn't a threat to national security. She isn't doing anything to help it either. She is a greiving mother who is angry that her son died. That makes perfect sense. Why we should listen to her policy ideas is completely beyond me. She had her encounter with Bush already, and now wants more. There is no reason to give her more. There is no reason to slime her, nor is there a reason to pay attention to her policy wishes. I don't understand why the media is focusing on her--or rather I do and it has nothing to do with policy analysis.

"I don't understand why the media is focusing on her--or rather I do and it has nothing to do with policy analysis."

I agree that it doesn't make her opinion any more valuable than anyone else's, but it is also nice to actually hear from someone who has made a sacrifice for this war effort. Of course, we do hear from soliders and others on the ground in Iraq as well, which is also a good thing.

In particular, if you believe that the President was dismissive of her, it should be genuinely damaging to your assesment of his character, because by doing so (if indeed he did do so) he by doing so was dismissive of the sacrifices necessary to conduct a war, which is a poor quality in a leader.

Sebastian: She had her encounter with Bush already, and now wants more. There is no reason to give her more.

No reason, except generosity, kindness, and basic political savvy. Bush lacks all three, but we knew this already. And you support him in his lack of all three... why?

"No reason, except generosity, kindness, and basic political savvy. Bush lacks all three, but we knew this already. And you support him in his lack of all three... why?"

Why do you not support someone who is doing his utmost to fight terrorist around the world? Is there some motivation that you might have that would cause you not to lend support to those that oppose terrorism?

Ask a stupid question...

Seriously, folks, DNFTT. It's really better for everyone.

In answer to question one: Because his "utmost" is pretty darn poor? Because the things that this administration are doing with that "utmost" effort are failing to improve the situation while dragging the good name of the country through the mud? I don't care if it's "hard work." I care if the job gets done. And he ain't doin it.

In answer to question 2: there are lots of people who oppose terrorism in this country. Bush doesn't have a monopoly on the issue. I'm going to support the people whom I think will best oppose terrorism and uphold the moral standards by which we as a nation ought to act. That means I'm not going to support Bush.

Bush says a great many noble, pretty things. What I don't understand, Wonder, is why we are obligated to take his words at their face value, on faith, without looking at the deeds that lie behind the words.

WonderWhy,

I for one, am interested in results. I want some accountablitity from the gov't officials who planned and executed the war in Iraq. The plans and policies instituted in Iraq, where NOT implemented by Mrs. Sheehan. Also, the fact that she may appear to be a little off kilter, has nothing to do with the extraordinary incompetence exhibited by the Bush admin. in Iraq. For those of you who supported the invasion in Iraq, its time to face reality and start directing your invective at those responsible.

What the bush bottom-feeders are doing is practicing the tactic known as the "hyper-smear" which simply means that they are attempting to smear Cindy Shaheen by smearing Michael Moore or anyone else who has opposed the human stain and his criminal war and who is now lending assistance to Cindy Shaheen's campaign to expose bush as a gutless fraud and treasonous criminal. This despicable tactic puts them in Rovian territory.

Phil: Seriously, folks, DNFTT. It's really better for everyone.

You're right, of course. *sits on hands*

This may not help people like Sebastian who profess not to get what all the fuss is about with Cindy Sheehan's action, but it's another in a long line of rewarding posts from Jeanne at Body&Soul for those who do, or are open to learning.

I hope that regulars here will remember, as they read the following, that I think the war in Iraq is a ghastly mistake, conceived and excuted both dishonestly and incompetently.

This "c'mon, tell us the noble cause" line is basically so much organic fertilizer.

Bush and his team have spent years telling us the noble cause. It's the removal of one of the world's most dangerous tyrants, eliminating his weapons of mass destruction and ensuring he can't make more, and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq, to be used as an example and as a launching pad for the further improvement of the Middle East. It's not like they've failed to tell us this.

Now, you may not believe them. I don't myself. But acting as though there's never been exposition about the reasons for the war or its aim is being disingenuous in ways that I think ultimately weaken the standing of the anti-this-war effort.

DNFTT--

especially when his last name is "...HeEvenBothers".

But acting as though there's never been exposition about the reasons for the war or its aim is being disingenuous in ways that I think ultimately weaken the standing of the anti-this-war effort.

That's just it--we've never actually gotten an /honest/ accounting of that "noble cause". What we get are mostly sound bites and jingoistic slogans. What justifications of substance there are have exhaustively shown to be demonstrably false (WMD snipe hunt), incredibly stupid, (remake the map of the ME), ignorant and evil (flypaper strategy), or contradicted by their own statements in the run-up to the war (depose Saddam to free the Iraqi people). We have half a dozen or so different rationalizations of why this war was a good idea, most of them in conflict with each other on some level, few of which were advanced in the beginning to sell this war to the American people, and none of which stand on their own anymore as a good reason for Casey Sheehan and thousands of others to be dead.

So no--the demands for an explanation about Bush's "noble cause" are not hogwash. This country deserves an honest accounting of why we went to war and why we are still there, and we've never gotten one. Nor will we. So at worst, Cindy Sheehan's demands are a tactic to demonstrate, by asking an unanswerable question, the bankruptcy of the pro-war arguments.

And you know what? The American people are starting to wake up and realize that the Bush Administration should've filed for Chapter 11 a long time ago.

Catsy, I agree with you that the president and his people are lying to us, when they're being so detached from reality that they can't realize they're lying. But that's a judgment separate from whether a rationale for the war has been offered - what we've gotten is the sort of thing one (at least this one) would expect for a war.

But that's a judgment separate from whether a rationale for the war has been offered - what we've gotten is the sort of thing one (at least this one) would expect for a war.

No, it's not. If I ask you why it was necessary to blow up my neighbor's house, and you answer that this city has a growing crime problem and sometimes it's necessary to take decisive action to protect the peace, you haven't given me a real answer, you've given me platitudes and generalities. And I'm well within my rights to continue to demand an answer.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes, Catsy, and that this confusion is just what I meant to be on about in the first place. :) Let me see if I can pull them out.

1. The rationale. "Why are you doing this, and what do you hope to accomplish?"

2. The support. "What evidence warrants your actions?"

What we need here from the administration is not the rationale but the support. I have the impression that most people saying "What noble cause?" actually mean "What evidence supported your initial judgments, and what evidence makes you think you're on the right course now, and what evidence makes you think you can get to your goal, sooner or later?" At least it seems to me it's being used that way. But the problem is, that particular phrasing invites folks who don't want to deal with the evidence to dismiss it all by saying (truthfully) that Bush et al have provided the rationale, lots of times.

I want to make it as hard as possible for the deniers of the evidence to do so, and for them to look as bad as possible to as many people as possible doing it. I see this as one small contribution to it.

Bruce: As this WaPo story shows, they're not even holding out for the 'noble cause' anymore, just anything that will let us draw down some troops and leave bases behind.

And, yes, 'what is the noble cause' is shorthand for 'tell us something besides empty platitudes'. So?

Clearly the reasons given for the war before the invasion were lies (not just mistakes), clearly we're not stabilizing the middle east or making Iraq more democratic or free, so Sheehan is asking the President why we are still there. The goals being set in today's Post article sure as hell wouldn't have inspired anyone as a noble cause.

The next step is to force them to come clean about bases, because her question applies to that as well.

The comments to this entry are closed.